The Great Russian Restoration VIII: A Pivot to “Patriotic” Corruption

I promised an article on the pro-Kremlin faction of the oligarchs, but that will have to wait until we get a final head count of who fled and who stayed in Russia. Friends today, enemies tomorrow — such is life in… well just about anywhere nowadays. Instead, we should probably say a few words about corruption, the security services and the way business is done in Russia to set the stage better for when we get into the nitty-gritty of it all soon.

Corruption is a buzzword in Eastern Europe in a way that it simply is not in the West. This is because in the West, corruption is legal and understood to be part and parcel of the Liberal Democratic process, whereas in the East, people still have the capacity to feel outrage at it. But in Washington, professional corrupters occupy seats in offices of prestigious lobbying organizations on K Street and no one denounces them. As we all know, these professionals help foreign interests, big business and ethnic grievance groups grease the wheels of political bureaucracy with nothing more than innocent handshakes, playful winks and well thought-out suggestions. In other countries this would be called corruption, but because America is a Human Rights Freedom-Loving Liberal Democracy we know a priori that corruption simply cannot exist because that’s not our values — that’s simply not who we are.

But take Nancy Pelosi and her son, who allegedly supports youth soccer programs in Ukraine. They’ve managed to extract staggering sums of loot from the poorest country in Europe. Then take Joe Biden and his son, who allegedly invest in shale gas extraction in Ukraine and, according to the recently revealed laptop emails, were involved in biolabs pathogen research. They’ve also made a tidy profit. This is, of course, considered normal and no one so much as shrugs in Washington or in the controlled media. One doesn’t even have to look abroad to American politicians fleecing failed states to see what Liberal Democracy is really about. Again, Joe Biden, for example, has had a long and storied career as an insurance industry representative. His home state of Delaware has had many companies come in to take advantage of tax loopholes and the like, and Joe Biden has gone to Congress for decades to push for legislation that is agreeable to their continued profits.

Again, this is normal. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. This is how the system works.

“Corruption!” The proles cried.

“Simply the cost of doing business!” The oligarchs replied.

Fundamentally, Liberal Democracy is based on the premise of giving the merchant/business class control over the political process. People with money at some point wanted to convert their currency into political power, which they were barred from accessing by the existing system of hereditary titles and a “services-rendered” based reward system run by the monarch. To give their money a voice, they had to change the political structure of their host countries to make them more amicable to the interests of their business caste, which led to the modern system of Liberal Democracy as we know it coming into its own.

But the proletariat of Eastern Europe didn’t understand this — they were willing to give Liberal Democracy a shot. They were then taken aback and morally outraged when they saw the whole country come to be dominated by oligarchic business interests. No doubt they should have read the fine print before signing on the dotted line as it were. Back in the Soviet Union, a party elite that adhered to the correct political ideology ran the country. Ambitious youth joined the Communist party and rose through the ranks by writing theses on Marxism-Leninism and then running some office or another until they got noticed and pulled up to the next rank by a party official. It was a system that people grew to hate at first, but then ended up becoming nostalgic for. At least the average prole more-or-less understood how the system worked and how to advance in it. You could figure out who to talk to to get something done and some problem solved. This new system, however, turned out to be even more opaque and labyrinthine than the one that came before it.

In general, if we compare Capitalism with, say, Communism, then we see a striking difference emerge. In one system, a group of powerful businessmen collude with one another to ban criticism of themselves and set up a system of private monopolies to fleece the people. In contrast, with Communism, we see a group of powerful party elites who conspire with one another to ban criticism of themselves and set up a system of state monopolies to fleece the people. The difference couldn’t be more stark. All this is to say that Oligarchy can take on many forms. You can have a political oligarchy that then takes on elements of an economic oligarchism. Or you can have an economic oligarchy that then ends up taking political power. Point being: the ruling caste of the USSR and the USSA have far more in common with one another than they would ever admit to their own captive populations.

The “Russian” form of corruption, however, is far worse than the one practiced in the West because the stolen money is then taken out of the country. In contrast, if we take Carnegie and Rockefeller, who were robber barons and oligarchs in their time as well, we can at least say they built some nice libraries and funded other public works within America with their stolen money. This is an important distinction and I would never forgive myself for not using this opportunity to push a rather esoteric political position promoted by the infamous modern occult philosopher Aleksander Dugin who stressed the need for the Russian government to promote “patriotic corruption” like the kind practiced in the West. A word on Dugin: he has never enjoyed the same levels of popularity in Russia as he has in the West, where he was seen as a kind of éminence grise of Russian politics, whereas his ideas were more often ridiculed in Russia than not. Personally, I maintain that the man had many good points to make that he was simply too “based” and realpolitik for correct-thinking people to even entertain his ideas. Most modern thinkers seem to be unable to throw off utopian castle-in-the-sky type thinking and simply make do with reality as it is and not insist on it conforming to their vision of how it should be.

Anyway, let’s get into our final point of discussion for today — the rentier siloviks.

In the Soviet Union, when the Bolsheviks first came to power, they did not practice Socialism or Communism as we understand it today. The first years saw the formation of the NEP program under which gangs of Jews appropriated private and state businesses and cannibalized huge swaths of Russian capital and assets while also positioning themselves as monopolists in the new “free market” economy. It was only under Stalin that the whole Communism thing started in earnest. What this Communism amounted to was Stalin killing off these private monopolists and putting his own people from the security organizations in charge of them. By this method, the NKVD came into ownership of property, land and other valuable assets. Many families living in the desirable downtowns of big cities like St. Petersburg and Moscow are descendants of one NKDV family or the other to this day. Unlike his predecessors, Stalin actually invested the appropriated resources back into the Soviet economy and began building his vision of Communism in earnest. Again, all it really amounted to was the private cartel from the NEP period being replaced by NKVD agents and a clamp down on capital flight from the USSR. But just by clamping down on capital flight and forcing the resources to stay in the country, Stalin was, indeed, able to turn the Soviet ship around. Moscow is largely a city built by Stalin. The towering “Stalinkas” that ring the capital are the most impressive and enduring monuments to Soviet architecture. Everything that came before and since Stalin has been the regular cost-saving brutalist concrete slurry that we have on display everywhere in the world, whether the country be Communist or Capitalist.

Now, the NKDV structure morphed into the KGB and then the FSB, which continued the legacy of security people maintaining a grip on state resources and directing them as they saw fit while also extracting a profit for themselves. This is still a reality in Russia today, although their grip on economic power weakened because of the 90s and the rise of a competing mafia — the private oligarchs. Entrepreneurs who want to start making money eventually have to do business with one mafia or the other. In modern Russia, they can approach the private oligarchs, the FSB or the official state — all approaches which have their advantages and drawbacks and which have to be weighed carefully.

In the West, in contrast, the state is the main mafia one has to deal with, and the government extracts its rents through fees, inspections, compliance codes, taxes and so on, not to mention the mountains of paperwork and time that have to be sunk in as well. Russia certainly has this system in place as well, but the official state’s monopoly on rent collection is not totally like in the West. By choosing to do businesses with the FSB, the strapping entrepreneur can bypass the bureaucracy and even save money in the short term. They simply pay their “Krisha” protection money to the FSB boss in charge of their street or section of the city or building and then they can set up their business tomorrow if they wish, no red tape involved. It seems like a good deal and most businessmen in the West would probably jump at the opportunity to pay a fee upfront and not have to deal with waiting, say 2 years, to get a state-issued liquor license.

However, all is not as it seems at first glance and the FSB boss might start considering a hostile takeover of the business on his territory if it starts becoming too profitable. Businessmen in Russia constantly complain about being muscled out of their projects and forced to sell to the people who are providing them with protection. And because they paid a bribe to avoid having to deal with state bureaucracy, their business dealings aren’t exactly clean. Most do a mental calculation and decide to cash out instead of fighting in the courts and possibly losing everything and getting a prison term to boot. Politics, then, becomes a necessary part of doing business for any striving oligarch-to-be because they need allies in power to protect their assets from lawfare waged by hostile, already established oligarchs, predatory FSB chiefs, and an impersonal, merciless bureaucracy that will grind them up in its gears before spitting them out to be torn to bits by scavengers.

There it is — an overview of the exquisitely, metaphysically evil nature of business and corruption in Russia.

But, having explained the Russian corruption system in general terms, I can only shrug and point out that despite all of this, or perhaps because of all of this, the ease of starting a business remains much easier in Russia than anywhere in the West. I also don’t think that Russia is all-in-all any more “corrupt” than the West either — in fact, I would say that it is less so. Consider: big companies in the West push for regulation that forces their smaller competitors out of business and allows them to set up monopolies. Is this not “corruption” by legal means?

Or consider what happens when a general retires and begins making millions of dollars working for a private weapons contractor bidding on government contracts that they are guaranteed to win because of money spent bribing politicians who are, in turn, themselves simply the puppets of business interests that got them elected in the first place. Is this not a form of corruption?

Does legalizing graft and sanctimoniously denouncing others change anything? Does creating a system of corruption that is more elegant make that system any less corrupt? What is the end result? What is the end goal? What are we crusading against and what are we trying to build? Who gets to decide the meanings of the terms we use? And the most important question: why do the peasants allow themselves to be politicized into caring about who is stealing from whom halfway around the world from where they live?

I contend, unlike the utopians, that corruption in one form or another will always exist in society regardless of whatever political ideology is adopted and promulgated as the state religion. Fundamentally, the state can monopolize and legalize corruption, like in the West, or you can have older, more archaic forms continue to flourish like in the East. Furthermore, an anonymous internet peasant like myself can afford to be a moral crusader, but no serious statesmen can, which means that Russia will remain a “corrupt” country for the foreseeable future. What is far more important to consider is the question is what form of corruption will come out on top as a result of the sanctions and the turn to autarky that we are witnessing occurring now in real time. A system of “patriotic corruption” where state assets stay within the country and are reinvested in the economy will be far better than what came before it. Furthermore, it is quite clear that state assets are better off in the hands of state spooks than in the hands of an international clique of rootless cosmopolitans. Finally, there should indeed be a legal and open path for honest businessmen to be able to take — but leaving a potentially risky off-road shortcut option open isn’t exactly a civilization-ending situation either.

Keep all of this in mind when we start talking about the pro-Kremlin oligarchs and the Chinese-style fusion of big business and government system that Russia is moving towards adopting in the near future.

14 replies
  1. JRM
    JRM says:

    “In general, if we compare Capitalism with, say, Communism, then we see a striking difference emerge. In one system, a group of powerful businessmen collude with one another to ban criticism of themselves and set up a system of private monopolies to fleece the people. In contrast, with Communism, we see a group of powerful party elites who conspire with one another to ban criticism of themselves and set up a system of state monopolies to fleece the people. The difference couldn’t be more stark.”

    Brilliant! I love this series of articles.

  2. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    An informative article. It is notable that the author recognizes the operative similarity between the state high bureaucracy and the capitalist oligarchs regarding access to proceed and operate a commercial enterprise. That explains why many in the hi tech, high wealth bracket favor extreme “Leftist” governmental policies, in other words, Big Government. They know that such power is under their control. For the 99%, their is no practical difference except atmospheirics and optics, i.e., the vote-which delusional people believe actually is a force for change in the West. It could be, if the electorate was capable of using logic, reason, and critical thinking, AND was objectively informed of issues and individuals, wholly and truthfully.

    It does seem that capitalism, when it grows and scales upward morphs into and merges in many ways with the state. This is by way of wealth concentration. For this to occur, anti-monopoly and merger laws must be weakened, and a legal system remain impartial and fair. Capitalism, like a life force, has an innate and reflexive drive to grow larger and larger. Unchecked, its power can reach the point where sociopaths and malignant narcissists are drawn to command it.

    Capitalism is a machine like organism. It has no conscience or inhibition in its purest form. In the past such inhibitions and modifications came from religious principles from the canons of Christian morality. Now there is nothing. What follows is the masquerade for its rapacity in the outward form of imagery, lies, misrepresentations, etc. For this to be passed off requires a government under its control, including the judicial branch. And it can hide its agenda and actions against competition and enemies by surrogate undertakings of the state, in its service. It’s like Sky Net in The Terminator.

    Of course, capitalism fused and infused by a useful, practical, and powerful religion or code of teachings and inherent ethics is the ideal system. The religion or code has to be immutable and internally consistent and properly structured in order to meet the challenge of innate drive to power, wealth and control. Nietschean “Superman” concepts will not cover the bases. These constructs an ideas are tactical and short lived, not strategic and broad enough to encompass the range of human expression, experience. The Superman concept is a monaural channel, or monorail. Buddhism is a multiplex, Unix like kernel that can run various programs utilizing a nucleus of commonality. Like the Reynold’s Numbers in fluid flow calculations, it used contradiction and non-intuitive precepts and concepts to balance a system, virtual or concrete. Higher mathematics are a subset of Buddhist thinking, or rather endeavor.

    So, the next time you hear some uber wealthy [“Behind a large fortune, there is a large crime}, say that he or she or it is a “socialist”, “progressive”, et al., know that they are deceptively posturing as a “man of the people”, a pathetic fanfare for the common man, and such other diversion drivel and diversion. What they really mean is that they want to harness the power of the state not for wealth redistribution (well, the wealth of the 99%), but that they want to control every aspect of every event and every person. And that of course is unnatural, creating unnatural craving and desire and mandatory participation and payment. This not governing, this is ruling. Capitalism always wants to reduce “waste” or excess cost and overhead. In its pure form, it is a slave colony creator.
    “Socialism is Communism”-Joseph Stalin. You see, whatever falls out of the sky will soak into the soil. Since both extreme, misused capitalism and socialism/contain the same toxins, to an earthworm who absorbs these substances, there is no difference.

    So what is the ideal government?
    A philosopher king? No
    A council of “nature’s natural aristocracy”, the most intelligent (IQ)? Give me a break.

    The only system that has timeless efficacy and endurance is restricted voting, to a knowledgeable, wise, moral, and “right ideas” and “right thoughts” (from the Eightfold Path). In history there have been several Buddhas, of course secondarily to Gautama Buddha. C. G. Jung in this regard is a buddha. They both flow with consistency into infinity. Jung is suppressed by Western academia for obvious reasons. It is too individually empowering.

    • bruno
      bruno says:

      I’ve enjoyed your commentary. Keep posting as you’ve apparently been around and seem the score.

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      White advocates have propounded religions wholly of a piece with “White Racialism.” There are the Cosmotheism of William Luther Pierce and the Creativity of Ben Klassen. Unlike Buddhism which neither exalts nor stresses White race, these religions inculcate White in-group preference and partisanship. And, unlike Buddhism which prescribes ahimsa (non-injury) and denigrates physical existence, Cosmotheism and Creativity urge struggling for one’s race by any means necessary, and aim at ensuring on this plane a White future without foreseeable end.

      Can you think that plugging Buddhism, except to persons whose swadharma is to retire, really makes sense?

      Would you go to West Point or some other military academy to argue the merits of conscientious objection? No, just as I wouldn’t go to PETA to discuss the comparative merits of different hunting rifles.

      Assuming you value racial preservation and prosperity, please say why Pro-Whites should prefer Buddhism to unequivocally pro-White ideologies which enjoin pro-White striving, including militancy. I, for one, am all eyes.

  3. Ovidiu
    Ovidiu says:

    What you are describing is a feudal system. According to your description of Russia your conclusion should be that Russia is not corrupt at all. The notion of corruption simply doesn’t exists in such system where it is the very social norm that the money-class owes its wealth to political favour and, respectively, can lose it a any moment if the oligrach/aristocrat falls out of favour with Tsar/King. The very concept does not exists in a feudal system. Corruption, and timplicitly he struggle against corruption, can exist only where the legitimate power (being it a King or independent institutions and elected democractically leaders) can not control the money-class and thus it (its decisions) can be bought (corrupted) by the money-class.

  4. Joe
    Joe says:

    Wise words.
    However, when there is a strong nationalistic element in the equation (i.e. National Socialist Germany), the “corrupt” oligarchs must pour their profits back into the state which oversees this mandate.

  5. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” And the most important question: why do the peasants allow themselves to be politicized into caring about who is stealing from whom halfway around the world from where they live? ”

    Peasants and the college educated classes both do not know any better than to be concerned with issues promulgated by their established leaders/rulers whom deflect away from their own iniquities . It is much too difficult for any individual to genuinely ( not disingenuously ) challenge the political status quo unless they have been specially trained and setup for it .

    The ancient and often lethal game of acquisition of dominion ( that is , monopolization of political power and/or economic resources ; in particular , the inordinate accumulation of power/resources into the hands of an oligarch or collective of oligarchs known as a “cabal” ) continues worldwide because the nonpolitical classes , whom are the vast majority and most of them are called “sheeple” , lack the intelligence and some classes even lack the IQ to remediate the inanities of unjustifiable monopolizations or move on to a more appropriate political modus operandi for resource distributions .

    The only real pragmatic moral issue is whether the code is appropriate for the political goal which may or may not be worthwhile . Christian dogma insinuates that an immutable moral code exists and that Christians have access to it in order to achieve an immutable goal of everlasting life in heaven after you are dead for at least three or more days .

  6. Laurence Austin
    Laurence Austin says:

    Hello, thank you for the education. The Western youth know very little of the historical background of Russia and the Ukraine. The power of Media control on the Ukraine Jewish Leader is amazing.
    My interests lie in the year 1776 and the birth of a political con by George Washington in the USA. Then off to WW-1 and 2, being the why on root cause,players and countries. I am American and Canadian and a Constitutional lawyer and economist. Today MSM and media journalists avoid the KHAZARIAN facts and any nasty words about apartheid in Israel for reasons of job security. The Palestine of 1920 will vanish from history thanks to Israeli genocide.Today I worry about ours.
    The true story of the TITANIC BS shows how long fairy tales can exist.
    I wanted to express my thanks for the in depth read and look forward to more.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      …” for reasons of job security.”

      No doubt . And perhaps because they do not want to be suicided as JFK was in 1963 .

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 First, the Palestinians had their ancestral lands bought up by the Jewish National Fund; often through unidentifiable strawmen in an attempt to obfuscate the intended goal.

      02 The justification was encapsulated in the slogan: ” A Land without People for a People without Land ! “.

      03 The negligible math error of Palestine being populated by 825,000 people was partly corrected by a number of massacres; foremost at Deir Yassin, bereft of male defenders. After its well was filled with corpses of old men, women and children, they were gunned down in an adjacent stone quarry, by their very own Einsatzgruppen.

      04 Hundreds perished on the roads, fleeing with their remaining belongings slung on their backs, pushing prams. Like Dresden and Kiev.

      05 In fact, the 1930 census for Germany listed ca. 200,000 LESS Jews than there were Palestinians.
      [ Yad Vashem data ]

      06 Haaretz recently wrote of the JNF once again looking for new land in case of an Israeli “emergency”.

      07 Said Fund set its eyes on the Greek Islands. Haaretz did not mention whether Athens was apprised of this Plan: and why should it ?

      08 At the latest, Athens would find out when the EXODUS docks at Piraeus, with a banner proclaiming ” Greek Islands without People for a People without Greek Islands ! ”

      09 As before, after their initial enthusiasm for honest labor on kibbutzim wanes, they would be cultivated by the indigenous people, while the new owners would retire to their counting offices, adjacent to their swimming pools.

      10 As personally observed during four 70s visits to Israel over five years, including kibbutzim each time.

  7. eric smith
    eric smith says:

    Another great Russian article though I’m not sure what your point is. That Russian corruption is preferable to that of liberal democracy/capitalist corruption? Just leaves me feeling hopeless as to the human condition and perplexed.

  8. bruno
    bruno says:

    Thanks, Rolo. Hats off to you. I recall, seemingly a hundred years ago, when out the King’s castle in Kraków, during Jimmy Carter’s visit, how all the political hacks from La CessPool Grande were like twins to the Reds. Be aware that when you compose these articles a large percentage of readers think that they understand, but they really don’t grasp the similarities and differences of the two European brother neighborhoods.

    All good thoughts. Have a great day.

Comments are closed.